1 posts from May 2003

Thursday, May 08, 2003

To listen to the debates on gambling reignited by Mayor Richard Daley's stated desire to open a casino in Chicago, you'd think it was simply a big land-use issue like airport development, Soldier Field renovation or the proposed Northwest Side Home Depot.

Benefits. Costs. Try to weigh out all the options and make a decision that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

But there's something different about gambling, isn't there? Something weightier and more essential. Something that supporters insist doesn't exist and that not even mainstream opponents like to talk about because it sounds so dour and stiff-necked. Yet it's the elephant in the room wherever this issue is debated: the moral question.

Is gambling wrong?

Not does it have harmful effects in some lives? Clearly it does. A small percentage of people find it powerfully addictive to the point that it destroys them and ruins their families.

Not is it a bad habit? Clearly it is for many people. It's a mind-numbing waste of money that saps time, energy and cash that could go toward any number of positive ends.

Not is it a bad investment? Whether Chicago and its communities would benefit from a downtown casino is as complex as public policy questions get.

Proponents of this and other proposed expansions of gambling point to increases in tax revenues, jobs and related economic development.

Opponents say the idea is as big a loser as Betty Loren-Maltese in Las Vegas--that the long-term costs of dealing with pathologies associated with problem gambling outweigh its benefits.

Who's right?

"Unfortunately, the lack of quality research and the controversy surrounding this industry rarely enable citizens and policymakers to truly determine the net impact of gambling in their communities, or, in some cases, their backyards."

This was the conclusion of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, a panel appointed by Congress in 1997 that spent two years trying to get a handle on what it called "an ephemeral subject." The data one might seek to calculate the impact "is spotty at best," its final report said, "and usually inadequate for an informed discussion, let alone decision."

So we return to the question that shades this issue: Is there something inherently, morally wrong about wagering?

Anyone who raises it is asking to be labeled a Puritan or a would-be member of the U.S. auxiliary of the Taliban. From baccarat to basketball pools to bingo nights, games of chance are utterly mainstream in our culture and in most cases utterly harmless diversions for individual players, some of whom, of course, come out ahead.

Yet the lure of gambling--the large payoff for a minimal investment--is antithetical to the connection between effort and reward that we know to be associated not only with strong, successful individuals, but also with strong, successful societies.

The high-minded part of us says shortcuts are for the lazy and disreputable, a form of cheating, even.

The everyday part of us buys lottery tickets when the jackpot swells. Because as much as it's human nature to value effort and reward, it's also human nature to want instant gratification. This tension is at the heart of what theologians call sin, said Gerald Forshey of La Grange, a retired Methodist minister and ethics professor who has spoken out against gambling.

But the "sin" argument "has been conceded" by the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling and similar mainstream groups, Forshey said. "That argument is just fuel for [the gambling lobby] to portray opponents as do-gooders," and in today's climate, he said, it's "easily defeated."

No doubt. But we all know it's there. It's why we intuitively know that a casino isn't just another big business, like a huge hardware store only with chaser lights and a free buffet; why we know that a video poker machine in a tavern isn't just another electronic amusement; why we know that the question of whether to salt our state with new slot machines is far more significant than the question of whether to build new roads or cut curbs.

Whether we think gambling is immoral or a pleasure to which free people are entitled, we know that it celebrates our lesser selves. And such celebrations always have their hidden costs.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.